If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Unfortunately, and one of the primary reasons for the continued existence of unions, they don't do so in an effective or efficient manner. While contrary to popular belief, not every union sends large amounts into political coffers. Certainly not in comparison to corporate PACS.

The unions were responsible for almost half of Bronco's contributions in 2012. That's significant.

"The beauty of the Second Amendment is that you won't need it until they try to take it away."---Thomas Jefferson

The unions were responsible for almost half of Bronco's contributions in 2012. That's significant.

Honestly I have no idea if that's true or not. I'll grant it the benefit of doubt, that's fine, but you also have to remember that according to the Federal Election Commissions filings on this election year:

Granted, there's certainly some discrepancies with how they calculate those figures... but they are the recognized totals used. Seeing the staggering amounts that business interest contribute. Along with the unfortunate caveat of American politics, don't contribute and most politicians don't want to answer your calls. There's little wonder that campaign contributions have to be made.

Honestly I have no idea if that's true or not. I'll grant it the benefit of doubt, that's fine, but you also have to remember that according to the Federal Election Commissions filings on this election year:

Granted, there's certainly some discrepancies with how they calculate those figures... but they are the recognized totals used. Seeing the staggering amounts that business interest contribute. Along with the unfortunate caveat of American politics, don't contribute and most politicians don't want to answer your calls. There's little wonder that campaign contributions have to be made.

Those are probably the numbers from direct contributions, however, big money was spent by the PAC's taking out their own ads.

The bottom line is that the union/democrat marriage is a fact. The democrat politicians know that as long as they support the unions, the unions will give money to their campaigns, hold placards at rallies and commit thuggery when necessary. They unions know that as long as they do their political dirty work that government contracts will keep rolling their way. And then, of course, there's the organized crime element.

"The beauty of the Second Amendment is that you won't need it until they try to take it away."---Thomas Jefferson

FWIW when I was a union officer of a pretty major union, we gave a whopping - campaign changing average of $100 a politician. Regardless of political affiliation, as long as they weren't berating us with political rhetoric. If I recall, only a handful were ever given $500 or $1000. It's been awhile since I was involved with PACs... For what it's worth our union PAC and fortune 100 corporate PAC almost mirrored each other, and we had an honored tradition of discussing controversial issues together and working to avoid unnecessary division. Sadly, many politicians check their campaign contribution list before scheduling appointments or returning phone calls, so everyone has to play that game to some extent.

The unions will mobilize their members on behalf of the Democrats they support; leafleting, canvassing, all manner of campaign work; a lot of it that would customarily be paid services, which are donated to the candidate's campaign.

This sort of "volunteer" work can equate to tens of thousands of dollars that a congressional campaign can spend elsewhere, and isn't legally required to declare as a contribution.